Ignoring trillion-dollar annual budget deficits and a nearly
$16 trillion national debt, the American Empire is still growing.
The latest imperial foray is expanding the ineffectual U.S. drug war
into Africa to combat such smuggling into Europe. Yes, Europe. Not
only does the United States spend tens of billions of dollars a year
subsidizing the defense of rich European countries, it is now
swelling such welfare spending to include essentially financing a
drug war in Africa for Europe. Never mind that cocaine use is a
declining problem back home in the U.S.

According to the New York Times, the United States has begun
training counternarcotics police in African countries because Latin
American drug cartels are increasingly moving cocaine into Europe
from weakly governed African states instead of through Spain, which
has conducted a crackdown on drug smuggling.

That drug producers and traffickers merely move production or
reroute supplies, respectively, when confronting such crackdowns
should be no surprise to U.S. officials. In Latin America, a
U.S.-backed Colombian government crackdown on coca growers merely
moved such production to Peru. When the U.S. government started
interdicting drug smuggling routes in the Caribbean, the trafficking
merely moved through Mexico. When the U.S.-backed Mexican military
violently clashed with drug cartels, they moved their trafficking
through Central America. The U.S. is now training and participating
in — even leading — lethal raids with Central American anti-drug
forces. That model has begun to be copied in Africa.

The United States recently completed a West Africa Cooperative Security
Initiative [.pdf] with 15 African countries that will encourage them to
battle trafficking using the same techniques Americans imported into
Mexico and Central America. Such methods include building
institutions (nation-building) and leading regional cooperation,
including sharing intelligence and operating regional law
enforcement training centers.

That they are wasting tens of billions of dollars annually on
what amounts to ineffective “Whac-A-Mole” efforts
doesn’t deter U.S. anti-drug officials. They are confident
that they can at least push the drug trade out of selected
countries, but they leave out that the drug lords will merely
migrate to other countries. And if U.S. officials increase
violence in nations where they are militarily
challenging previously dominant drug lords — as they did by
apparently leading lethal drug raids recently in Honduras — they say
it’s all worth it, because they believe the alternative is
worse. They claim that nations experiencing drug trafficking also
become consumer nations. So implicitly these anti-drug warriors are
saying that people’s freedom to put what they want into their
bodies is worse than being endangered or killed by wanton violence.

The people of Mexico — who have experienced such a spike in drug
war–related carnage, because the U.S.-backed Mexican army and police
have challenged the drug lords — would beg to differ with this line
of argument. Enrique Peña Nieto was recently elected president of
Mexico on a platform that emphasized reducing the violence, thus
implicitly lessening the confrontation with drug lords. In a few
years, the people of poor African countries may also disagree with
the “increased violence to reduce drug consumption”
trade-off.

In the case of Africa, U.S. security forces may have ulterior
motives for moving into West African nations. The U.S. training of
local counternarcotics forces has begun in Ghana and is planned for
Nigeria. The DEA has set up its first office in Senegal, and the
Pentagon has set up a center in the island nation of Cape Verde off
the West African coast to detect drug-trafficking vessels headed for
the continent. First, instead of reducing the federal deficit by
reducing spending, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound
down, U.S. security forces need something to do and are putting more
effort and money into fighting drugs. Second, West Africa is
supplying an increasing percentage of American oil imports. As a
result, Africa, previously the only continent in the world that the
U.S. security establishment didn’t regard as strategic, now
has the U.S. Africa Command created to police it. The U.S.
government now wants to have closer relationships with governments
and security forces in West Africa, and helping them fight drug
smuggling is a good excuse. However, this “let’s be
friends” policy may backfire among the people of these
countries if U.S. security forces are perceived to be responsible
for increased drug violence either by backing the militaristic
response of local governments to drug lords, as in Mexico, or by eventually leading
the lethal raids against them, as has seemingly happened in
Honduras.

At any rate, the Caribbean-Mexico-Central America model of
militarized drug interdiction is not one that should be replicated
in Africa. It will only bring spiraling violence and heartache to
Africans and distress to the American taxpayer’s pocketbook.
The proper response is to end the ineffectual and violent drug war
everywhere and legalize drugs for adults.

2012040967173 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Feland%2F2012%2F07%2F24%2Fthe-drug-war-expands-to-africa%2FThe+Drug+War+Expands+to+Africa2012-07-25+06%3A00%3A31Ivan+Elandhttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012040967 to “The Drug War Expands to Africa”

Somehow all these drug war scams seem more about wealth redistribution than about stopping the flow of drugs. Mexico gets quite a bit of money to wage that war against their own people. They could say no.

Can we please stop talking about the drug war as if it can be taken seriously at face value as 'a campaign to stop drug use', and be open about the fact that it is a naked exercise in military police state tactics.

This is about expanding the police state powers of the U.S. the "drug war" is a facade.

The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, examined 5,115 men and women over the course of two decades – between March 26, 1985 and August 19, 2006. The data also showed that high-use of the plant, about one joint every day for 7 years, had little to no negative impact on lung air flow rates or lung volume. What’s shocking is that there is evidence pointing to slight increases in lung air flow rates as well as enhancements in lung volume from occasional marijuana use – positive effects of marijuana many wouldn’t believe

Prove you wrong with what? You don't even know what he died of. Tell you what monkey if he died from an overdose of pot use I will apologize to you for everything I said and delete my account and you will never hear from me again. Are you man enough to do the same………………..or are you too much of a coward to make that bet?

Yeah, the anti-pot crowd is still waiting for that first confirmed death so they can say "I told you so". Meanwhile I can stop in any store and by my supply of liquid death or I could probably find enough crap over the counter to get me good and f****d up, and lets not forget about cancer sticks. But never mind, nothing hypocritical there. And I'd bet my house Stallone's kid didn't die because of pot.

Imagine if every time there were traffic fatalities, the investigators tested for the presence of THC as vigorously as they do for the blood alcohol level (BAC). Unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon because marijuana is the politically correct drug that your would-be masters have declared off limits for testing. Ask yourself, why they would do that for a drug continually touted as one inducing lethargy, apathy, and submissiveness.

Nope, that wasn't what I said. The post is right there. How you could have so extremely misconstrued that is a mystery even to other taqiyya-ists.

I do remember reading years ago, though, that THC is stored in body fat for some time after the use (a few months?) and possibly in levels that do allow for a slight degree of intoxication. I don't know if the truth of that has been "revised" since then but it wouldn't be unusual given how many other things, once considered fact, are being revised to suit political agendas of those who hate truth.

"Imagine if every time there were traffic fatalities, the investigators tested for the presence of THC as vigorously as they do for the blood alcohol level (BAC)"

The most popular kind of drug test is the urine test, which can detect marijuana for days or weeks after use. Note that urine tests do not detect the psychoactive component in marijuana, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), and therefore in no way measure impairment; rather, they detect the non-psychoactive marijuana metabolite THC-COOH, which can linger in the body for days and weeks with no impairing effects. Because of THC-COOH's unusually long elimination time, urine tests are more sensitive to marijuana than other commonly used drugs

Blood tests are a better detector of recent use, since they measure the actual presence of THC in the system. Because they are invasive and difficult to administer, blood tests are used less frequently. They are typically used in investigations of accidents, injuries and DUIs, where they can give a useful indication of whether the subject was actually under the influence.

Hair tests are the most objectionable form of drug testing, since they do not measure current use, but rather non-psychoactive residues that remain in the hair for months afterwards. These residues are absorbed internally and do not appear in the hair until 7-10 days after first use.

Their is no way to test for impairment, just presence. Detection time depends strongly on the kind and sensitivity of the test employed; the frequency, dosage, and last time of use; the individual subject's genetic makeup, the state of one's metabolism, digestive and excretory systems; and other random, unknown factors.

I've been smoking for 40 years. I've been working for the same company for 30 years. I own my own home and have never been in trouble with the law. I'm not lethargic, apathetic or submissive. You and idiot Roger should educate yourselves instead of litening to rush limbaugh.

I don't "liten" to Rush Limbaugh. Why is it inconceivable to you that others think for themselves? Herdmental illness got ya' down?

You just displayed, in spades, the arrested development that seems to be so prevalent in chronic users. What I would like to know is, does the arrested development lead to drug use or does the drug use lead to the arrested development?

Of course you leave out it was a rumor you ran with. That it people in an unsubstantiated case with no trial or independent reports. You just love the thought of violence in a very muslim friendly manner, with your willingness to call for jihad.

Your reading comprehesion skills seem to fail you. Perhaps reading the comments outloud would help you. I said I was content. If I had no salary at all, I wouldn't be content. It really is that simple. Now, read it outloud and get back to me.

Oh look, you're starting you day. Do you clock in at the trolling station at 9 eastern, spend about half an hour drinking coffee and glancing over the sheets of talking points before you start in on the comments?